or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The rise of the fascist American state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The rise of the fascist American state

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Americans citizens are already being assassinated by their own government without due process.

Now they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Any American citizen can now be arbitrarily labeled a "terrorist" by our government and immediately lose all constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. This is literally the legalization of martial law.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama all support this.

Guess who doesn't?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Americans citizens are already being assassinated by their own government without due process.

Now they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Any American citizen can now be arbitrarily labeled a "terrorist" by our government and immediately lose all constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. This is literally the legalization of martial law.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama all support this.

Guess who doesn't?

I'm actually not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I'm against citizens being held without trial. On the other, I think there is a good case that once you take up arms against the nation as a member of say, Al-Queda, you should lose access to the court system the rest of us have.

In the end, I think that the law is unnecessary and could be badly misused. If you take up arms against the U.S. as an American citizen on U.S. soil, we should just try you for treason.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If you take up arms against the U.S. as an American citizen on U.S. soil, we should just try you for treason.

I'm glad you agree it's a bad law. But the statement I quoted above is disturbing.

Do you disagree with the founding fathers?

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

(Emphasis mine.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Americans citizens are already being assassinated by their own government without due process.

Now they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Any American citizen can now be arbitrarily labeled a "terrorist" by our government and immediately lose all constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. This is literally the legalization of martial law.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama all support this.

Guess who doesn't?

It's a bad law. Ron Paul is right on this matter and the others are wrong. I would think much like Obamacare, that upon review by the Federal Courts and specifically the Supreme Court, that it would be overturned.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 37
I find this to be rather funny.

Not only did Obama fail to close Gitmo, like he promised that he would, but instead, now Americans will be sent to Gitmo.

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm glad you agree it's a bad law. But the statement I quoted above is disturbing.

Do you disagree with the founding fathers?



(Emphasis mine.)

Why would you find that disturbing? I don't think you understand my meaning. I'm saying it's an unnecessary law because we already have processes for dealing with people that take up arms against the country....it's called "treason" and it's the only crime defined in the Constitution.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 37
This is another installment in a long term trend to gradually heat the water .. as in the "boiling frog" scenario.

Readiness Exercise 1984... called for the suspension of the US Constitution and declaration of martial law in the event of "a national emergency". Drafted by Col. Oliver North and modeled after a 1970 FEMA plan to imprison millions of black Americans in the event of an uprising in that community. It also called for powers to arbitrarily imprison US citizens who were opposed to war.

Former VP Cheney wanted to bestow dictatorial powers upon the White House long before the Bush Administration, or 9/11.

In 1995, Joe Biden wrote the framework for what became the USA "Patriot" Act. He claimed this in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing... but he was lying: his work in drafting this was completed in February 1995, some 5 weeks prior to the OKC bombing.

Spying on American citizens by government agencies, unconstitutional from US soil, was being sought well before 9/11.

KBR (subsidiary of Halliburton) was awarded a $384 million in 2005 contract to build detention centers in the event of "an immigration emergency" (!).

The above is the tip of the iceberg.

Some of these measures proposed in the latter half of the 20th century remained dormant, perhaps lacking a significant "shock and awe" type of event to galvanize the citizenry into supporting measures as extreme as these.

Any further decay wouldn't need anything quite as drastic as 9/11.. .. a few truck bombs in city centers killing a few hundred, with the finger pointed towards any number of assigned boogeymen du jours (Iran, al Qaeda, Occupy Wall Street, Right Wing militia groups or 2nd Amendment supporters), for a few examples, would permit another step up in liberty-curtailment, mass surveillance and maximum security measures, checkpoints and the paranoid accoutrements of martial law.

Do people feel that because we have a constitutional republic (using approximately democratic methods), the USA is immune to what has happened in so many other nations in modern history?

This crap will only end when the people wake up from their slumber, reclaim our public airwaves from the purveyors and backers of fear, and take things into our own hands.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

This is another installment in a long term trend to gradually heat the water .. as in the "boiling frog" scenario.

Readiness Exercise 1984... called for the suspension of the US Constitution and declaration of martial law in the event of "a national emergency". Drafted by Col. Oliver North and modeled after a 1970 FEMA plan to imprison millions of black Americans in the event of an uprising in that community. It also called for powers to arbitrarily imprison US citizens who were opposed to war.

Former VP Cheney wanted to bestow dictatorial powers upon the White House long before the Bush Administration, or 9/11.

In 1995, Joe Biden wrote the framework for what became the USA "Patriot" Act. He claimed this in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing... but he was lying: his work in drafting this was completed in February 1995, some 5 weeks prior to the OKC bombing.

Spying on American citizens by government agencies, unconstitutional from US soil, was being sought well before 9/11.

KBR (subsidiary of Halliburton) was awarded a $384 million in 2005 contract to build detention centers in the event of "an immigration emergency" (!).

The above is the tip of the iceberg.

Some of these measures proposed in the latter half of the 20th century remained dormant, perhaps lacking a significant "shock and awe" type of event to galvanize the citizenry into supporting measures as extreme as these.

Any further decay wouldn't need anything quite as drastic as 9/11.. .. a few truck bombs in city centers killing a few hundred, with the finger pointed towards any number of assigned boogeymen du jours (Iran, al Qaeda, Occupy Wall Street, Right Wing militia groups or 2nd Amendment supporters), for a few examples, would permit another step up in liberty-curtailment, mass surveillance and maximum security measures, checkpoints and the paranoid accoutrements of martial law.

Do people feel that because we have a constitutional republic (using approximately democratic methods), the USA is immune to what has happened in so many other nations in modern history?

This crap will only end when the people wake up from their slumber, reclaim our public airwaves from the purveyors and backers of fear, and take things into our own hands.


Just don't buy it's one big conspiracy that the "powers that be" have been pushing for decades. I just don't. To me it's the unfortunate natural erosion of liberties that takes place over time.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Just don't buy it's one big conspiracy that the "powers that be" have been pushing for decades. I just don't. To me it's the unfortunate natural erosion of liberties that takes place over time.

.

The "natural erosion of liberties that take place over time" are part of what happens with big, intrusive government. Governments tend towards taking away liberties, rather than voluntarily granting them. The rights we (often) take for granted were not gained without lengthy, protracted courses of action from ordinary people, often at great sacrifice.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #10 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

.

The "natural erosion of liberties that take place over time" are part of what happens with big, intrusive government. Governments tend towards taking away liberties, rather than voluntarily granting them. The rights we (often) take for granted were not gained without lengthy, protracted courses of action from ordinary people, often at great sacrifice.

Agreed. All I'm saying is I don't think it's some conspiracy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed. All I'm saying is I don't think it's some conspiracy.

It doesn't require a conscious conspiracy, as such. When people get into positions of power, access, privilege, etc. 99% abuse that status by lording it over those without such. A civilized society creates checks and balances to mitigate this aspect of human nature.

Everyone is against terrorism, except terrorists and those who promote, or even cause terrorism, in order to fight it (the problem-reaction-solution thing). This makes it very easy for politicians who are addicted to the projection of power, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", to hoodwink the public into giving up hard earned, and fought-for rights and liberties, without resistance from the public. Nobody wants to be against a government that is fighting terrorism, lest they be classified as a 'supporter of terrorism'. It's an ace card for rogue politicians (from left to right), and it's a hard one to resist.

How many senators and congresspeople voted for the "Patriot" Act, or the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, or S-1867 and a whole slew of other measures and laws under the threat of being ostracized by their peers? In the case of the Patriot Act, hardly anyone read it... and voted for it on a knee jerk. S1867 is more suited to Argentina under General Galtieri, or North Korea under "Krazy Kim", than a constitutional republic.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

It doesn't require a conscious conspiracy, as such. When people get into positions of power, access, privilege, etc. 99% abuse that status by lording it over those without such. A civilized society creates checks and balances to mitigate this aspect of human nature.

Everyone is against terrorism, except terrorists and those who promote, or even cause terrorism, in order to fight it (the problem-reaction-solution thing). This makes it very easy for politicians who are addicted to the projection of power, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", to hoodwink the public into giving up hard earned, and fought-for rights and liberties, without resistance from the public. Nobody wants to be against a government that is fighting terrorism, lest they be classified as a 'supporter of terrorism'. It's an ace card for rogue politicians (from left to right), and it's a hard one to resist.

Again, this assumes some sort of conspiracy ("hoodwinking the public"). I don't believe that it's some sort of agenda that most of Congress has. You could make the case that Patriot was an overreaction, or done out of fear, or even that there are certain people who wanted those provisions for years. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

Quote:

How many senators and congresspeople voted for the "Patriot" Act, or the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, or S-1867 and a whole slew of other measures and laws under the threat of being ostracized by their peers?

I don't know. How about you tell us? Maybe you could provide some evidence that even one did instead of just asking a loaded question.

Quote:
In the case of the Patriot Act, hardly anyone read it...

Show me that's true.

Quote:
and voted for it on a knee jerk.

Possibly.

Quote:
S1867 is more suited to Argentina under General Galtieri, or North Korea under "Krazy Kim", than a constitutional republic.

This is where you go completely off the rails. Tell me, sammi, which parts of the Patriot Act do you find so objectionable, specifically?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Again, this assumes some sort of conspiracy ("hoodwinking the public"). I don't believe that it's some sort of agenda that most of Congress has. You could make the case that Patriot was an overreaction, or done out of fear, or even that there are certain people who wanted those provisions for years. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Show me that's true.

Oh come on. One of the most extremist measures in 200 years... and there wasn't even a debate in Congress! A vote without a debate relies on what? Did those lazy bums in Congress read it in their spare time? Did they hell, they were probably lunching with their favorite corporate lobbyists.

Quote:
This is where you go completely off the rails. Tell me, sammi, which parts of the Patriot Act do you find so objectionable, specifically?

Nobody has the time to read through the whole thing to sift out specifics. All of it would be my short answer.

The "Patriot" Act has given unwarranted power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review. It eliminates the checks and balances which distinguish between governments in the "free" world and totalitarian states.

The "Patriot" (sic) Act violates due process for all Americans. All the president has to do is call a citizen an "enemy combatant," and the person's due process rights disappear. One doesn't have to be a "terrorist". Anyone who exposes crimes in high places is a target, for example.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment." This new authority could be used against American citizens in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism, immigrants within our borders legally, and those whose First Amendment activities are deemed threats to national security by the Attorney General.

It's a law that equates free speech and expression with sedition. It has evolved into over 7,000 pages of treacherous legalese designed to interrupt questioning of government policy.

A nation in which the executive branch can suspend normal justice procedures for anyone and everyone they deem "enemy of the state", for "reasons" which remain secret... That's paranoia. That's Stalinism.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #14 of 37
Thread Starter 
Ron Paul explains it better than I can:

http://youtu.be/es-hpxj01uQ

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Fair enough.



Oh come on. One of the most extremist measures in 200 years... and there wasn't even a debate in Congress! A vote without a debate relies on what? Did those lazy bums in Congress read it in their spare time? Did they hell, they were probably lunching with their favorite corporate lobbyists.

So I'll just put you down as refusing to answer.

Quote:



Nobody has the time to read through the whole thing to sift out specifics. All of it would be my short answer.

That's an absurd and totally unbalanced answer.

Quote:

The "Patriot" Act has given unwarranted power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review. It eliminates the checks and balances which distinguish between governments in the "free" world and totalitarian states.

How? Specifics, please.

Quote:

The "Patriot" (sic) Act violates due process for all Americans. All the president has to do is call a citizen an "enemy combatant," and the person's due process rights disappear. One doesn't have to be a "terrorist". Anyone who exposes crimes in high places is a target, for example.

It's not quite the simple. First of all, only the President can do this. It certainly doesn't violate the due process rights of "all Americans."

Quote:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Source?

Quote:
This new authority could be used against American citizens in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism, immigrants within our borders legally, and those whose First Amendment activities are deemed threats to national security by the Attorney General.

Which authority? The police can plant drugs in my car too...that doesn't mean they will.

Quote:

It's a law that equates free speech and expression with sedition. It has evolved into over 7,000 pages of treacherous legalese designed to interrupt questioning of government policy.

Now you're just being poetic!

Quote:

A nation in which the executive branch can suspend normal justice procedures for anyone and everyone they deem "enemy of the state", for "reasons" which remain secret... That's paranoia. That's Stalinism.

They can't suspend "normal" justice procedures or anyone and everyone, nor have they. There have been a handful of enemy combatants--people who took up arms against the country. I suppose we should let the courts sort it out, though.

The fact of the matter is that most of the Patriot Act simply modernizes how intelligence and law enforcement communities work together. It breaks down outmoded walls between agencies like the CIA and FBI in relation to fighting terrorism. You'd be hard pressed to find many Stalin-esque violations or anything close. In fact, you'd have a hard time demonstrating what freedoms most of us have lost as a result.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They can't suspend "normal" justice procedures or anyone and everyone, nor have they. There have been a handful of enemy combatants--people who took up arms against the country. I suppose we should let the courts sort it out, though.

You trust a government that detains and kills innocent people in other countries without due process to restrain itself at home. I don't. It's the same government.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that most of the Patriot Act simply modernizes how intelligence and law enforcement communities work together. It breaks down outmoded walls between agencies like the CIA and FBI in relation to fighting terrorism. You'd be hard pressed to find many Stalin-esque violations or anything close. In fact, you'd have a hard time demonstrating what freedoms most of us have lost as a result.

The Patriot Act was written and passed under the assumption that the government is the GRANTER of our rights and not the PROTECTOR of our rights as outlined in our founding documents.

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) are inalienable. They do not come from government. And if an individual is going to be deprived of those rights by the government, the government must first show how that individual has infringed upon the rights of others to merit the loss of their own.

Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, breaking into their homes and seizing property, detaining them indefinitely without trial, assassinating them without trial - these are all gross violations of the Bill of Rights - of basic human rights.

If you or I did these kinds of things to anyone else - spying, kidnapping, stealing property, killing - we would be rightly considered criminals. These things are just as wrong if the government does them. The government should not be able to do anything that you or I cannot do. And just because the government has now made these things "official policy" does not make them any less wrong.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #17 of 37
How's that hopie changie stuff workin' out for ya?
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Americans citizens are already being assassinated by their own government without due process.

Now they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Any American citizen can now be arbitrarily labeled a "terrorist" by our government and immediately lose all constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. This is literally the legalization of martial law.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama all support this.

Guess who doesn't?

Someone told me years ago when I was residing in Vancouver BC that the U.S. is turning into a military country where his words are true as I see now.Obama cannot be trusted!
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You trust a government that detains and kills innocent people in other countries without due process to restrain itself at home. I don't. It's the same government.

Innocent people? Who would those people be? You're granting the benefit of the doubt to these people as if they are suspected of shoplifting at Wal-Mart. It's a completely unrealistic view of the world that I've come to find many Ron Paul supporters have. We are not dealing with a law enforcement operation. We're dealing with matters of the life and death of American citizens from terrorism...with acts of war committed against America and her citizens. And you want to give these people who operate outside the bounds of international laws of war the same rights you and I have. I'm sorry, I just can't support that.

Quote:

The Patriot Act was written and passed under the assumption that the government is the GRANTER of our rights and not the PROTECTOR of our rights as outlined in our founding documents.

That's an unsupported opinion and your own interpretation. It may be correct, but it's worth pointing out it's not something you've supported.

Quote:

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) are inalienable. They do not come from government.

Agreed.

Quote:
And if an individual is going to be deprived of those rights by the government, the government must first show how that individual has infringed upon the rights of others to merit the loss of their own.

Mostly agreed, though there are exceptions when we get into terrorism and taking up arms against the nation and her citizens. I agree that U.S. citizens captured on American soil should not be detained without trial or held as a enemy combatant. That's why we have the crime of treason, for which they should be tried and executed if convicted by a court of law.

Quote:

Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, breaking into their homes and seizing property, detaining them indefinitely without trial, assassinating them without trial - these are all gross violations of the Bill of Rights - of basic human rights.

1. The government is not going around wiretapping American citizens en masse. What you are referring to is the terrorist surveillance program, which monitored certain people based on calls coming from and going to suspicious sources. This happened post-9/11 and was disclosed to Congress, and reviewed every 90 days. Given the circumstances and what was actually done, I support it. Warrants were not realistic in these cases, even those from the FISA court. That court was not designed to approve the kind of surveillance we needed to do...only for specific numbers and people.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking into homes and seizing property" without a warrant. Examples?

3. I agree with the detaining without trial comment in most cases (as in I oppose doing that).

4. I'm going to disagree on "assassination." We don't have trials before we go to war and try to kill the enemy. Likewise, these people are not covered under Geneva because they are not affiliated with Nation-State's armed forces, even covertly. I fully support targeting and killing people oversees who our military and intelligence communities deem to be terrorists. It's war. What do you want to do..have a a trial in absentia, then capture them and give them the gas chamber? Come on. Again, it's an unrealistic view.

Quote:

If you or I did these kinds of things to anyone else - spying, kidnapping, stealing property, killing - we would be rightly considered criminals.

I don't but that argument. If you and I collected taxes from people's incomes under threat of force, that would be illegal too. It's not illegal for the government because they are empowered under the law and the U.S. Constitution do do so. The same applies to spying and killing...it depends on the circumstances and the reasons for which it's done. Stealing property without due process for American citizens is obviously wrong, which is one reason I think decisions like Kelo v. New London are an atrocity.

Quote:

These things are just as wrong if the government does them. The government should not be able to do anything that you or I cannot do. And just because the government has now made these things "official policy" does not make them any less wrong.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. You're oversimplifying what "these things" are. It's not murder if you kill someone on a battle field. It's not an "assassination" to kill bin laden, for example.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Innocent people? Who would those people be? You're granting the benefit of the doubt to these people as if they are suspected of shoplifting at Wal-Mart. It's a completely unrealistic view of the world that I've come to find many Ron Paul supporters have. We are not dealing with a law enforcement operation. We're dealing with matters of the life and death of American citizens from terrorism...with acts of war committed against America and her citizens. And you want to give these people who operate outside the bounds of international laws of war the same rights you and I have. I'm sorry, I just can't support that.

What's unrealistic is to expect to meddle in the affairs of other nations and not have them resent and hate us for it.

Quote:
Mostly agreed, though there are exceptions when we get into terrorism and taking up arms against the nation and her citizens. I agree that U.S. citizens captured on American soil should not be detained without trial or held as a enemy combatant. That's why we have the crime of treason, for which they should be tried and executed if convicted by a court of law.

There are no exceptions. Either unalienable rights apply to everyone, or they apply to none, regardless of the particular part of the world they appear to be standing on.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Note that it was written before this country even came to be. Note that it says "ALL MEN".

You cannot pick and choose who has these unalienable rights and who does not. Either we all do, or we all don't.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." -- Frederic Bastiat

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What's unrealistic is to expect to meddle in the affairs of other nations and not have them resent and hate us for it.

Yes, Jazz...spoken like a true Paulite. They'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone. Come on...we're not tlaking about meddling, we're talking about killing the enemy. I mean, really.

Quote:

There are no exceptions. Either unalienable rights apply to everyone, or they apply to none, regardless of the particular part of the world they appear to be standing on.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Note that it was written before this country even came to be. Note that it says "ALL MEN".

You cannot pick and choose who has these unalienable rights and who does not. Either we all do, or we all don't.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." -- Frederic Bastiat

So you're saying that the right of a trial applies to everyone? What about nations at war? What about the Taliban? If there are no exceptions, there are no exceptions. The problem here again is that what you say sounds wonderful and is correct in principle. But in application it simply makes no sense. There have to be exceptions, and there has to be context. The founders never intended that people who are captured on the field of battle get trials or face a judge and jury before execution. They never contended with radical Muslims bent on the destruction of Western Civilization. War was totally different then, with uniformed armies marching in lines and columns and such. Jeez, by your definition our own independence was in violation of the Declaration. I mean, after all...we killed British troops...what did they ever do to us?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, Jazz...spoken like a true Paulite. They'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone. Come on...we're not tlaking about meddling, we're talking about killing the enemy. I mean, really.

And what made them our enemy?

Quote:
So you're saying that the right of a trial applies to everyone? What about nations at war? What about the Taliban? If there are no exceptions, there are no exceptions. The problem here again is that what you say sounds wonderful and is correct in principle. But in application it simply makes no sense. There have to be exceptions, and there has to be context. The founders never intended that people who are captured on the field of battle get trials or face a judge and jury before execution. They never contended with radical Muslims bent on the destruction of Western Civilization. War was totally different then, with uniformed armies marching in lines and columns and such. Jeez, by your definition our own independence was in violation of the Declaration. I mean, after all...we killed British troops...what did they ever do to us?

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Seriously. Have you?

Do you not realize that it outlines the specific reasons for the revolution and the instances in which the British government was infringing upon the inalienable rights of its people? It is perfectly moral and justifiable to defend yourself, your family, your property against aggression.

I strongly encourage you to read the entire declaration and pay special attention to that list of reasons. Compare it to our day. The parallels are striking.

Our founding fathers made it very clear that they were fighting to restore and preserve their unalienable rights which had been infringed upon by their own government.

You claim the American revolution was an exception to the principles of liberty. Facts and history show that it was an attempt to restore liberty.

So about Syria: in what way(s) is Syria infringing upon the rights of American citizens to justify any action of our government against them?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And what made them our enemy?

I'm really sure it's just that we poke at them with a stick. See, we'd have no enemies if we just left everyone alone. This is why Ron Paul should never be elected President. It's a dangerous view.

Quote:


Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Seriously. Have you?

Yes.

Quote:

Do you not realize that it outlines the specific reasons for the revolution and the instances in which the British government was infringing upon the inalienable rights of its people? It is perfectly moral and justifiable to defend yourself, your family, your property against aggression.

Then why is it not OK to defend the nation from terrorists?

Quote:

I strongly encourage you to read the entire declaration and pay special attention to that list of reasons. Compare it to our day. The parallels are striking.

We're not talking about merely the growth and abuses of a large, omnipresent goverment. We're talking about killing people...for specific reasons.

Quote:

Our founding fathers made it very clear that they were fighting to restore and preserve their unalienable rights which had been infringed upon by their own government.

OK. And we've made it clear that we are fighting Islamic fascism. What you're point?


Quote:

You claim the American revolution was an exception to the principles of liberty. Facts and history show that it was an attempt to restore liberty.

I didn't claim that, you did. You said there were absolutely no exceptions. That means those British troops should have gotten trials before we shot at them. Of course, you and I know that's ridiculous. The point is that there are clearly exceptions in matters of war. Fighting terrorism in the modern world is one of them.

Quote:

So about Syria: in what way(s) is Syria infringing upon the rights of American citizens to justify any action of our government against them?

Look, I get it. Your view (like most Paul supporters, again) is that if a world event doesn't have a direct relationship to America, we shouldn't be involved in any way. That is the view I find unrealistic and against my principles. I believe that while we can't unilaterally be the world's police force, our power and influence comes with great responsibility. America is an exceptional nation, not merely a powerful one. We have a duty to stand up for what is right in the world. Sometimes, if our security is threatened (or that of an ally), we use military force. Sometimes we use diplomacy. Sometimes we use our economic influence. But we don't withdraw from the world and only look at what affects us directly. That's not who we are.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm really sure it's just that we poke at them with a stick. See, we'd have no enemies if we just left everyone alone. This is why Ron Paul should never be elected President. It's a dangerous view.

Ron Paul has never said we'd have no enemies if we left everyone alone. But we would have less enemies, for sure. There's something about a foreign country occupying and bombing your family and friends to death that might cause you to resent and hate the country doing the occupying and bombing.

We meddle in their internal affairs, overthrowing "dangerous regimes" only to have it backfire on us when a more hard-line regimes emerge in their place. We impose economic sanctions that cause hundreds of thousands of their people to die from starvation and disease and we don't expect to see any negative repercussions from that?

It's time to look for opportunities to deescalate and GET OUT OF THEIR FACE.

Quote:
Then why is it not OK to defend the nation from terrorists?

It's perfectly OK to defend yourself when attacked. Iraq wasn't attacking us. Libya wasn't attacking us. Iran is not attacking us. Syria is not attacking us.

Quote:
We're not talking about merely the growth and abuses of a large, omnipresent goverment. We're talking about killing people...for specific reasons.

But the reasons aren't specific. They haven't been clearly defined and they change all the time. Anyone can be labeled a "terrorist" for any reason without due process. Our own citizens are being bombarded with radiation, patted down, and strip searched in the name of "fighting terrorism", for crying out loud. It's one giant witch hunt.

Quote:
OK. And we've made it clear that we are fighting Islamic fascism. What you're point?

Has Congress given an official declaration of war to that effect, per our Constitution? No. Has the government suspended and infringed upon the rights of Americans in the name of protecting them from themselves and others? Yes. We are becoming the fascism our government claims to be fighting.

Quote:
I didn't claim that, you did. You said there were absolutely no exceptions. That means those British troops should have gotten trials before we shot at them. Of course, you and I know that's ridiculous. The point is that there are clearly exceptions in matters of war. Fighting terrorism in the modern world is one of them.

Google "non-aggression principle".

Quote:
Look, I get it. Your view (like most Paul supporters, again) is that if a world event doesn't have a direct relationship to America, we shouldn't be involved in any way. That is the view I find unrealistic and against my principles. I believe that while we can't unilaterally be the world's police force, our power and influence comes with great responsibility. America is an exceptional nation, not merely a powerful one. We have a duty to stand up for what is right in the world. Sometimes, if our security is threatened (or that of an ally), we use military force. Sometimes we use diplomacy. Sometimes we use our economic influence. But we don't withdraw from the world and only look at what affects us directly. That's not who we are.

It's not who we were intended to be or should be. And it's not who we've always been.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #25 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul has never said we'd have no enemies if we left everyone alone. But we would have less enemies, for sure. There's something about a foreign country occupying and bombing your family and friends to death that might cause you to resent and hate the country doing the occupying and bombing.

Islamic terror doesn't exist because we "occupy and bomb their countries." This is exactly the kind of lunacy that disqualified Paul from being taken seriously. It's a complete misunderstanding of why terrorism and anti-Americanism exists. You can wordsmith Paul all you want, but he believes we'd be left alone if we just went away.

Quote:

We meddle in their internal affairs, overthrowing "dangerous regimes" only to have it backfire on us when a more hard-line regimes emerge in their place.

We have certainly meddled at times and stuck our nose places it shouldn't be. That much I agree with.

Quote:

We impose economic sanctions that cause hundreds of thousands of their people to die from starvation and disease and we don't expect to see any negative repercussions from that?

Right, because it was US sanctions that caused bin Laden to plot 9/11. It's was U.S. sanctions that caused AQ attacks around the world. It was U.S. sanctions that caused NK to develop nuclear weapons. Jesus Effing Christ.

Quote:

It's time to look for opportunities to deescalate and GET OUT OF THEIR FACE.

Be specific. Whose face? What should we stop?

Quote:

It's perfectly OK to defend yourself when attacked. Iraq wasn't attacking us. Libya wasn't attacking us. Iran is not attacking us. Syria is not attacking us.

I totally disagree. Completely. Defense is ongoing. It's not always military-related, but it's ongoing. Yours is a dangerous view.

Quote:

But the reasons aren't specific.

Yes, they are.

Quote:
They haven't been clearly defined and they change all the time.

They've been exceptionally clear. If you attack America...if you take up arms against her, you can be targeted.

Quote:
Anyone can be labeled a "terrorist" for any reason

That is not true.

Quote:
without due process.

That's the problem...you assume due process is required for everything, and its not. Giving people captured in battle the same rights as American citizens actually cheapens OUR rights.

Quote:
Our own citizens are being bombarded with radiation, patted down, and strip searched in the name of "fighting terrorism", for crying out loud. It's one giant witch hunt.

A witch hunt? A witch hunt? Look, I think the TSA sucks and I have serious concerns with it. But it's not a "witch hunt."

Quote:

Has Congress given an official declaration of war to that effect, per our Constitution? No.

You assume that a formal declaration of war is required at all times. I disagree. And in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there were Congressional authorizations of force. Same thing, different name.


Quote:
Has the government suspended and infringed upon the rights of Americans in the name of protecting them from themselves and others? Yes. We are becoming the fascism our government claims to be fighting.

I oppose big government and don't agree with everything we do. I think we meddle where we should not, and have made many mistakes. I agree that we are losing our rights in many ways. But I don't agree we've become "fascist." That's just hyperbole.

Quote:

Google "non-aggression principle".

Right, force is only acceptable when you say it's acceptable, even if it violates the principle you laid out earlier. Got it.

Quote:
It's not who we were intended to be or should be. And it's not who we've always been.

It's hard to say what we were intended to be in that sense, because the world is so much different and interconnected. What I know is how the world is. I simply look at our role differently than you and Ron Paul do. I don't buy that everything will be fine if we just stand down and shut up.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #26 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right, force is only acceptable when you say it's acceptable, even if it violates the principle you laid out earlier. Got it.

You didn't look up the non-aggression principle, did you? If you did, I think you may have misunderstood.

Force is legitimate ONLY in self defense. That is, when force has been initiated against you.

Non-aggression is not pacifism. Non-intervention is not isolationism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You didn't look up the non-aggression principle, did you? If you did, I think you may have misunderstood.

Force is legitimate ONLY in self defense. That is, when force has been initiated against you.

Non-aggression is not pacifism. Non-intervention is not isolationism.

Yes, I understand. We've had this discussion before. However, the revolutionary war does not follow the principle. Don't pretend that the big, bad British just marched over and started to massacre people in the streets while we defended ourselves.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, I understand. We've had this discussion before. However, the revolutionary war does not follow the principle. Don't pretend that the big, bad British just marched over and started to massacre people in the streets while we defended ourselves.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


Nice response.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice response.

The response I wanted to post would have fallen on deaf ears.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The response I wanted to post would have fallen on deaf ears.

I understand your responses quite well. My feeling is simply that you and Paul share a view of foreign policy that is both unrealistic and dangerous.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I understand your responses quite well. My feeling is simply that you and Paul share a view of foreign policy that is both unrealistic and dangerous.

Unrealistic and dangerous for treasonous war profiteers. Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy denies these parasites a sizable portion of their trillion dollar gravy train of corporate welfare.. and they might have to diversify into selling goods and services that are constructive for America and useful (and this profitable) to humanity at large.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Unrealistic and dangerous for treasonous war profiteers. Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy denies these parasites a sizable portion of their trillion dollar gravy train of corporate welfare.. and they might have to diversify into selling goods and services that are constructive for America and useful (and this profitable) to humanity at large.

The problem with this post is the same as Paul's statements and positions: There are elements of truth to it. Is the military-industrial complex too large and too influential? Yes. Do we get involved in too many things militarily? Yes. Do we need to restructure and reduce our oversees footprint? Yes. Do we stoke anti-Americanism with certain actions? Yes.

But that's where the wheels come off. Our own security would be dramatically affected in the short and long term by drastic military cuts, bringing all the troops home, by closing our foreign bases and by following the non-aggression principle. The world would burn, and it would bite us in the butt eventually. Terrorists would not stop targeting America and Americans. Iran would not halt it's nuclear ambitions, nor would North Korea. More people would go hungry without our foreign aide. Russia would grow in power and influence. All of things are bad, and all would happen while we sat there and watched.

The bottom line is the world is better with our influence, as is our own security. That's what Ron Paul his supporters don't get.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The problem with this post is the same as Paul's statements and positions: There are elements of truth to it. Is the military-industrial complex too large and too influential? Yes. Do we get involved in too many things militarily? Yes. Do we need to restructure and reduce our oversees footprint? Yes. Do we stoke anti-Americanism with certain actions? Yes.

The size and reach of the (US) military industrial complex in relation to the US economy as a whole is a problem of disproportion that is way beyond solution. Since WWII (courtesy of the USSR threat, both the real and imaginary components), we have piled so much emphasis on "defense", "security" and related war products that in order to sustain some justification on the part of the public perception, this sector has had to be actively and perpetually engaged.

When the Communist Bloc self-imploded around 1990, the US was left high and dry, with a defense capability geared to taking on an "aggressive global superpower", which in a matter of weeks became an unsellable threat as they abandoned communism. We were all "dressed up, with nowhere to go". This was a problem: the defense sector needed a replacement that was equal in threat-stature to Hitler/Japan, or the USSR.

The US response to the changed geopolitical situation could have fallen anywhere in a spectrum with the two extremes: (a) Scaling down the US defense sector to be in proportion the reduced threat, all the way to (b) Maintaining or even accelerating the pace of growth of the defense sector.

Option (a) was a no go for politicians at state and federal levels, regardless of political leanings. So many jobs and businesses and communities throughout the country depend on the military industrial complex and related goods and services. Scaling back to this extent, cutting defense spending etc. etc. would have caused an economic melt-down, bankrupting countless businesses, throwing millions of people out of work, and trashing our trade balance.

As we all know, Option (b) was the way to go, for all of our sakes, like it or not. It just required the defense sector finding "somewhere to hang its hat" in order to maintain the public trust and justification for such astronomical expenditure.

Quote:
But that's where the wheels come off. Our own security would be dramatically affected in the short and long term by drastic military cuts, bringing all the troops home, by closing our foreign bases and by following the non-aggression principle.

If it were possible to scale down overseas military reach, it would have be done very slowly and gradually... perhaps starting with Western Europe?

Quote:
The world would burn, and it would bite us in the butt eventually. Terrorists would not stop targeting America and Americans.

Really? According to many historians, terrorists have targeted America and American interests on account of the complete opposite of what you are suggesting... ie US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Quote:
Iran would not halt it's nuclear ambitions, nor would North Korea.

What is potentially more dangerous? A nuclear capable, but relatively stable Iran, or an Iran transformed into chaos through war, millions of angry young men, and the entire Islamic world alongside, enraged, yet again, with America, the West (and Israel?).

Quote:
More people would go hungry without our foreign aide.

Is that a valid parameter in the world of realpolitik?

Quote:
Russia would grow in power and influence. All of things are bad, and all would happen while we sat there and watched.

Russia is already growing in power and influence, after being broke and overrun with organized crime. Russia's recovery will happen regardless.

Quote:
The bottom line is the world is better with our influence, as is our own security. That's what Ron Paul his supporters don't get.

"Our influence".... there is the $multi-trillion issue. What kind of influence should the US have in the world? Respecting us for our strength and our commitment to rights and freedom? Or fearing us and hating us? Our image in the world is moving relentlessly from former to the latter, and as mentioned in the first paragraphs, we have no choice.

It's a done deal.... the "horse bolted the stable" decades ago and he's now a bleached skeleton somewhere in a distant creek bed. The only course open to us, to maintain a stable America, is a form of velvet-gloved totalitarianism. Thankfully, we are a huge country and its physical size will mitigate the effects of such on the public, perhaps to the extent that for many in rural and sparsely populated areas, life will go on pretty much as normal.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The size and reach of the (US) military industrial complex in relation to the US economy as a whole is a problem of disproportion that is way beyond solution. Since WWII (courtesy of the USSR threat, both the real and imaginary components), we have piled so much emphasis on "defense", "security" and related war products that in order to sustain some justification on the part of the public perception, this sector has had to be actively and perpetually engaged.

When the Communist Bloc self-imploded around 1990, the US was left high and dry, with a defense capability geared to taking on an "aggressive global superpower", which in a matter of weeks became an unsellable threat as they abandoned communism. We were all "dressed up, with nowhere to go". This was a problem: the defense sector needed a replacement that was equal in threat-stature to Hitler/Japan, or the USSR.

The US response to the changed geopolitical situation could have fallen anywhere in a spectrum with the two extremes: (a) Scaling down the US defense sector to be in proportion the reduced threat, all the way to (b) Maintaining or even accelerating the pace of growth of the defense sector.

Option (a) was a no go for politicians at state and federal levels, regardless of political leanings. So many jobs and businesses and communities throughout the country depend on the military industrial complex and related goods and services. Scaling back to this extent, cutting defense spending etc. etc. would have caused an economic melt-down, bankrupting countless businesses, throwing millions of people out of work, and trashing our trade balance.

As we all know, Option (b) was the way to go, for all of our sakes, like it or not. It just required the defense sector finding "somewhere to hang its hat" in order to maintain the public trust and justification for such astronomical expenditure.

I agree with most of that.

Quote:

If it were possible to scale down overseas military reach, it would have be done very slowly and gradually... perhaps starting with Western Europe?

That's a reasonable option. We probably don't need troops there in the numbers we have now.

Quote:



Really? According to many historians, terrorists have targeted America and American interests on account of the complete opposite of what you are suggesting... ie US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, for example.

That's an over-simplication. We'd not be left alone just because we remove those troops.

Quote:



What is potentially more dangerous? A nuclear capable, but relatively stable Iran, or an Iran transformed into chaos through war, millions of angry young men, and the entire Islamic world alongside, enraged, yet again, with America, the West (and Israel?).

You're assuming that are not enraged already. That's the the issue...we're not going to avoid being hated by leaving Iran alone. Instead of strong and hated, we'll be weak and hated. I choose option A.

Quote:



Is that a valid parameter in the world of realpolitik?

That's an odd question. I wasn't getting into the political realities, just stating something I thought was pretty obvious.

Quote:



Russia is already growing in power and influence, after being broke and overrun with organized crime. Russia's recovery will happen regardless.

I'm not concerned about their recovery. I am concerned about their influence and power.

Quote:


"Our influence".... there is the $multi-trillion issue. What kind of influence should the US have in the world? Respecting us for our strength and our commitment to rights and freedom? Or fearing us and hating us? Our image in the world is moving relentlessly from former to the latter, and as mentioned in the first paragraphs, we have no choice.

Again, an over-simplication.

Quote:

It's a done deal.... the "horse bolted the stable" decades ago and he's now a bleached skeleton somewhere in a distant creek bed. The only course open to us, to maintain a stable America, is a form of velvet-gloved totalitarianism.

We're not close to totalitarianism. Please.

Quote:
Thankfully, we are a huge country and its physical size will mitigate the effects of such on the public, perhaps to the extent that for many in rural and sparsely populated areas, life will go on pretty much as normal.

That I agree with.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We're not close to totalitarianism. Please.

That is not what I said. I said that we are heading in that direction. Unless DC puts the brake on, which isn't likely, another 2 or 3 decades of what's gone down in recent years, and the notion of America as a "nation of liberty" will be dead and buried.

Quote:
That's an odd question. I wasn't getting into the political realities, just stating something I thought was pretty obvious.

Politicians don't give a flying monkey about "foreign aid" unless it can be employed as good PR, or a potential vote winner.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 37
Hey anyone else find it strange that Arizona is being sued by the Federal Government for attempting to detain illegal aliens, but there's apparently no problem with detaining American citizens?

Buy them votes, buy'em!!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The rise of the fascist American state